Last July, when President Trump sent a series of tweets indicating he would be banning military service by transgender people, the trans military community and trans rights activists were sent into a tailspin, with many fearing the ban would make life hell for actively serving trans people and work to increase anti-trans discrimination more broadly. Trump’s tweets sowed confusion within the military community as well, with the joint chiefs, who claim they were unaware of the ban until Trump’s tweets were reported publicly, unsure of details or an implementation plan surrounding the ban, or even whether official military orders could legally be communicated by tweet. Finally, on August 25, a Presidential Memorandum was released that clarified the situation beyond mere tweets, asking the Department of Defense to “determine how to address transgender individuals currently serving in the United States military,” with full implementation of the plan to occur by March 23.

So it was that late yesterday afternoon, news broke that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis finally made his recommendation to the White House — and his decision was that transgender service members would be allowed to continue to serve. A Pentagon spokesperson confirmed to them. that Mattis will deliver his specific recommendations to the president at some point this week; until then, few details are publicly available about the full plan itself.

From pushing back against health care access and employment rights for trans people, to rolling back Obama-era protections for trans students, to consistently nominating judges and department staff who are vehemently anti-trans, the military ban fits squarely into the Trump administration’s agenda of all-out attacks on trans rights. But despite Mattis’ recommendation, experts and trans service members still fear that the Trump administration could ban service by trans people; as the commander-in-chief, Trump still has the last word on military policy unless Congress takes direct action, and thus the careers of trans people in the military are far from secure.

While lawsuits have thus far stalled implementation of any sort of ban, including a proposed policy to reject new enlistments by trans people that was set to begin January 1 this year, trans service members and their families have been waiting for a permanent policy solution to shake out. According to Harper Jean, policy director for the National Center for Transgender Equality, Mattis’ recommendation wouldn’t necessarily put an end to the uncertainty surrounding trans service, especially if the White House continues pursuing a ban of some sort. “This may not be resolved by the March 23 date that the president has ordered; the timeline for litigation could be longer, as we’ve seen with the Muslim ban,” Jean says. “The government will probably make new motions to dismiss the cases, and we will have another round of motion practice in the district courts, probably followed by appeals. It’s difficult to predict a timeline for these things.”

A bipartisan bill to guarantee the inclusion of transgender service members was introduced in both the House and Senate last September, but in an election year, it remains to be seen whether either chamber will take action. In the meantime, hard-working trans military personnel suffer the consequences.

A 2016 RAND Corp study estimated that there are between 1,320 and 6,630 active trans service members in the US military. The DOD is considered the largest employer of trans people on the planet — meaning a ban on open service would be a devastating blow to the trans community. “Even if you aren’t pro-military, this is a way of saying trans people can’t be full members of society,” says Mara Keisling, NCTE’s executive director.

Advertisement

“We've got a lot of very nervous trans service members and their families out there that are waiting on pins and needles to see if the country they love is going to turn its back on them after telling them that it was okay to be yourself and serve openly,” says Lt. Col. Bree Fram, who is genderfluid and currently visiting Iraq as part of her duties with the Air Force.

“The fear of the ban, and specifically of me being unemployed and my wife and kids left homeless, has been in the back of my mind since last July. It hangs over everything I do. I would like to say it hasn’t impacted my work, because I have a job to do and I am a professional, but how could it not?” says Jennifer, a 37-year-old active duty Naval Technician who declined to give her last name or rank to maintain her privacy. “Having the secretary of defense possibly backing us is surprising but relieving... [The courts have] been very clear that it’s discriminatory and illegal. Now I’m worried this administration is going to try to backdoor a purge into place.”

Beyond its implications for trans rights, Mattis’ reported recommendation to retain trans service members makes strategic sense. Lt. Col. Fram estimates that at a minimum, it costs about $100,000 to train each service member, with some, like pilots or special operations, costing much more. If a ban on service by transgender people were to be enacted, the expense to the military in terms of sunk training costs would reach well over a billion dollars, not to mention the loss of decades of experience that trans service members bring to their positions. One of the Secretary of Defense’s central missions is to maintain military readiness, and the time and money it would take to replace thousands of experienced trans service members could be better spent elsewhere.

While Jennifer says her chain of command values her and supports her transition, it’s hard for her superiors to make effective plans without knowing if she’ll continue to be an important part of the mission. “If this ban goes into place, my division will lose the only senior watchstander who was on the last deployment, right before the next one,” she says, referring to her role standing watch over the ship. “I’m not irreplaceable, but that’s still a serious loss of experience and job knowledge when it’ll be needed most.”

“That, as much as the financial implications for my family, is why this ban offends me,” she continues. “It’s treating valuable people as if they’re disposable and burdensome to satisfy petty bigotry, and in doing so it’s going to hurt the military.”

Barring congressional action, the ball is now in Trump’s court, and trans service members continue to watch and wait patiently to see if the president will once again put their careers under threat. It was Jennifer who perhaps summed up the situation perfectly. “I know I’m one of the best technicians in my division; I’ve helped train everyone who has come after me,” she says. “To instead face the possibility of my career being ended to appease a pack of bigots utterly disgusts me.”

Katelyn Burns is a freelance journalist and trans woman. Her other work has been featured for The Washington Post, VICE, Elle, Esquire, and Playboy, among others. She lives in Maine with her two young children.

them, a next-generation community platform, chronicles and celebrates the stories, people and voices that are emerging and inspiring all of us, ranging in topics from pop culture and style to politics and news, all through the lens of today’s LGBTQ community.